16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[DeadPoolX 9]

That isn't the same argument though.

I'm not saying anywhere that they are "permitted" to break the law or that this should somehow be excused and given a "free pass" - I am saying that I understand the general reason why people in Central/South American countries immigrate illegally, and that considerations of moral legality probably don't enter into their decision to do it.

Understanding why people migrate from those countries - and why its so attractive to them is surely central to understanding the overall problem. Certainly there are domestic issues of border security and law enforcement to consider - but the problem exists fundamentally because of economic deprivations in those countries that create the desire to move somewhere better.

We can tip-toe around the issues all we want - but that's surely the cold, honest truth.

It's not the responsibility of the United States or American citizens to make sure Mexico and Mexican citizens have a comfortable place to live (the same is true in the reverse). The U.S. has it's legal system in place and even if someone feels they are morally justified in crossing the border, their illegal actions are easily trumped by the law.

I can understand why they want to leave and come here. Barring the recent downturn in our economy, it makes sense. Even low pay in the U.S. is probably better than what they'd receive there.

My issue -- aside from the obvious illegality of their actions -- is there is virtually no way to improve their own economy unless they work towards it themselves. Maybe it's simpler to run across the border to the United States, but that only worsens the general situation in Mexico. They need to have the desire to improve their homeland instead of escaping from it. Doing such is possible and although difficult, would result in far greater success for Mexicans and Mexico itself.

[HAL 9000 96]

It was only a matter of time before we simplified the issue to the point of trying to wash our hands of the matter altogether.

This world is not a closed borders-closed economical system.

Since we want to be reductionists to the point of embarrassment, I merely suggest we do a little more thinking as to how and why it would be in our best interests both legally with this migratory mess and financially to help our neighbors overcome many of the disasters that ironically exist to satisfy our own selfish self-interests.

Using individual examples to exemplify the whole characteristic is only valid when the individual examples are parallel. That is called common sense.

[Heracles 417]

It was only a matter of time before we simplified the issue to the point of trying to wash our hands of the matter altogether.

This world is not a closed borders-closed economical system.

Since we want to be reductionists to the point of embarrassment, I merely suggest we do a little more thinking as to how and why it would be in our best interests both legally with this migratory mess and financially to help our neighbors overcome many of the disasters that ironically exist to satisfy our own selfish self-interests.

Using individual examples to exemplify the whole characteristic is only valid when the individual examples are parallel. That is called common sense.

Do you have any idea about what you are talking about?

[MariaBonita 11]

It seems Mr. Barnett and the rest go way out of their way to harass people.

So is he protecting his property or being a {low class} BP officer in his own mind? Or just a crazy dude?

I guess we don't know, eh.

Rancher Ordered to Pay $98,000 to Hispanic Family He Confronted with an Assault Rifle

DOUGLAS, AZ (By Randal C. Archibold, NYTimes) November 24, 2006 — For years, Roger Barnett has holstered a pistol to his hip, tucked an assault rifle in his truck and set out over the scrub brush on his thousands of acres of ranchland near the Mexican border in southeastern Arizona to hunt.

Hunt illegal immigrants, that is, often chronicled in the news.

“They’re flooding across, invading the place,” Mr. Barnett told the ABC program “Nightline” this spring. “They’re going to bring their families, their wives, and they’re going to bring their kids. We don’t need them.”

But now, after boasting of having captured 12,000 illegal crossers on land he owns or leases from the state and emerging as one of the earliest and most prominent of the self-appointed border watchers, Mr. Barnett finds himself the prey.

Immigrant rights groups have filed lawsuits, accusing him of harassing and unlawfully imprisoning people he has confronted on his ranch near Douglas. One suit pending in federal court accuses him, his wife and his brother of pointing guns at 16 illegal immigrants they intercepted, threatening them with dogs and kicking one woman in the group.

Another suit, accusing Mr. Barnett of threatening two Mexican-American hunters and three young children with an assault rifle and insulting them with racial epithets, ended Wednesday night in Bisbee with a jury awarding the hunters $98,750 in damages.

The court actions are the latest example of attempts by immigrant rights groups to curb armed border-monitoring groups by going after their money, if not their guns. They have won civil judgments in Texas, and this year two illegal Salvadoran immigrants who had been held against their will took possession of a 70-acre ranch in southern Arizona after winning a case last year.

The Salvadorans had accused the property owner, Casey Nethercott, a former leader of the Ranch Rescue group, of menacing them with a gun in 2003. Mr. Nethercott was convicted of illegal gun possession; the Salvadorans plan to sell the property, their lawyer has said.

But Mr. Barnett, known for dressing in military garb and caps with insignia resembling the United States Border Patrol’s, represents a special prize to the immigrant rights groups. He is ubiquitous on Web sites, mailings and brochures put out by groups monitoring the Mexican border and, with family members, was an inspiration for efforts like the Minutemen civilian border patrols.

“The Barnetts, probably more than any people in this country, are responsible for the vigilante movement as it now exists,” said Mark Potok, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the groups. “They were the recipients of so much press coverage and they kept boasting, and it was out of those boasts that the modern vigilante movement sprang up.”

Jesus Romo Vejar, the lawyer for the hunting party, said their court victory Wednesday would serve notice that mistreating immigrants would not pass unpunished. Although the hunters were not in the United States illegally, they contended that Mr. Barnett’s treatment of them reflected his attitude and practices toward Latinos crossing his land, no matter what their legal status.

“We have really, truly breached their defense,” Mr. Vejar said, “and this opens up the Barnetts to other attorneys to come in and sue him whenever he does some wrong with people.”

Mr. Vejar said he would ask the state attorney general and the county attorney, who had cited a lack of evidence in declining to prosecute Mr. Barnett, to take another look at the case. He also said he would ask the state to revoke Mr. Barnett’s leases on its land.

Mr. Barnett had denied threatening anyone. He left the courtroom after the verdict without commenting, and his lawyer, John Kelliher, would not comment either.

In a brief interview during a court break last week, Mr. Barnett denied harming anyone and said that the legal action would not deter his efforts. He said that the number of illegal immigrants crossing his land had declined recently but that he thought it was only a temporary trend.

“For your children, for our future, that’s why we need to stop them,” Mr. Barnett said. “If we don’t step in for your children, I don’t know who is expected to step in.”

Mr. Barnett prevailed in a suit in the summer when a jury ruled against a fellow rancher who had sued, accusing him of trespassing on his property as he pursued immigrants. Another suit last year was dropped when the plaintiff, who had returned to Mexico, decided not to return to press the case.

Still, the threat of liability has discouraged ranchers from allowing the more militant civilian patrol groups on their land, and accusations of abuse seem to be on the wane, said Jennifer Allen of the Border Action Network, an immigrant rights group.

But David H. Urias, a lawyer with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund who is representing the 16 immigrants suing Mr. Barnett, said fewer complaints did not necessarily mean less activity. Immigrants from Mexico are returned to their country often within hours and often under the impression that their deportation — and chance to try to return again — will go quicker without their complaints.

“It took us months to find these 16 people,” Mr. Urias said.

People who tend ranches on the border said that even if they did not agree with Mr. Barnett’s tactics they sympathized with his rationale, and that putting him out of business would not resolve the problems they believe the crossers cause.

“The illegals think they have carte blanche on his ranch,” said Al Garza, the executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Arizona, a civilian patrol group that, Mr. Garza says, does not detain illegal immigrants but calls in their movements to the Border Patrol. “The man has had it.”

Mr. Barnett, a retired Cochise County sheriff’s deputy and the owner of a towing business, acquired his ranch in the mid-1990s, buying or leasing from the state more than 22,000 acres.

Almost from the start he took up a campaign against the people crossing the border from Mexico, sometimes detaining large groups and radioing for the Border Patrol to pick them up.

Chuy Rodriguez, a spokesman for the agency’s Tucson office, said the Border Patrol maintained no formal relationship with Mr. Barnett or other civilian groups. Agency commanders, concerned about potential altercations, have warned the groups not to take the law into their hands.

“If they see something, we ask them to call us, like we would ask of any citizen,” Mr. Rodriguez said.

Mr. Barnett’s lawyers have suggested he has acted out of a right to protect his property.

“A lease holder doesn’t have the right to protect his cattle?” Mr. Kelliher asked one of the men in the hunting party, Arturo Morales, at the trial.

“I guess so, maybe,” Mr. Morales replied.

Mr. Barnett has had several encounters with local law enforcement officials over detaining illegal immigrants, some of whom complained that he pointed guns at them. The local authorities have declined to prosecute him, citing a lack of evidence or ambiguity about whether he had violated any laws.

A few years ago, however, the Border Action Network and its allied groups began collecting testimony from illegal immigrants and others who had had confrontations with Mr. Barnett.

They included the hunters, who sued Mr. Barnett for unlawful detention, emotional distress and other claims, and sought at least $200,000. Ronald Morales; his father, Arturo; Ronald Morales’s two daughters, ages 9 and 11; and an 11-year-old friend said Mr. Barnett, his brother Donald and his wife, Barbara, confronted them Oct. 30, 2004.

Ronald Morales testified that Mr. Barnett used expletives and ethnically derogatory remarks as he sought to kick them off state-owned property he leases. Then, Mr. Morales said, Mr. Barnett pulled an AR-15 assault rifle from his truck and pointed it at them as they drove off, traumatizing the girls.

Mr. Kelliher conceded that there was a heated confrontation. But he denied that Mr. Barnett used slurs and said Ronald Morales was as much an instigator. He said Morales family members had previously trespassed on Mr. Barnett’s land and knew that Mr. Barnett required written permission to hunt there.

Even as the trial proceeded, the Border Patrol reported a 45 percent drop in arrests in the Douglas area in the last year. The agency credits scores of new agents, the National Guard deployment there this summer and improved technology in detecting crossers.

But Ms. Allen of the Border Action Network and other immigrant rights supporters suspect that people are simply crossing elsewhere.

http://hispanic7.com/rancher_ordered_to_pa...sault_rifle.htm

[Heracles 417]

That isn't the same argument though.

I'm not saying anywhere that they are "permitted" to break the law or that this should somehow be excused and given a "free pass" - I am saying that I understand the general reason why people in Central/South American countries immigrate illegally, and that considerations of moral legality probably don't enter into their decision to do it.

Understanding why people migrate from those countries - and why its so attractive to them is surely central to understanding the overall problem. Certainly there are domestic issues of border security and law enforcement to consider - but the problem exists fundamentally because of economic deprivations in those countries that create the desire to move somewhere better.

We can tip-toe around the issues all we want - but that's surely the cold, honest truth.

All you do is understand. It s the epitome of PD.

How about actually giving your opinion for a change with regards to solving the problem. Any idiot can identify it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What can complain all day about what people *should* do in idealised situations, but that doesn't take away from the reality of situation that we have.

As far as resolving it - we can certainly bump up border security, but the real solution surely lies in removing the demand for illegal labour and making the US a less attractive prospect for migrants. That can be done to some extent through beefing up labour laws and having uniform procedures for background checks and ID applications.

That said - if it is in our interests to resolve this problem in a meaningful way, then regardless whether we consider it our responsibility or not - we need to work with Mexico and other CA/SA countries to address some of these problems. To some extent this can be achieved through things like NAFTA, which despite of criticisms against it, has had the effect of lowering the poverty rate in Mexico from the very high levels seen in the mid 1990s.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All you do is understand. It s the epitome of PD.

How about actually giving your opinion for a change with regards to solving the problem. Any idiot can identify it.

Perhaps because unlike you - I don't think these are things that can be resolved with a sawed off shotgun and crocodile clips on the nipples connected to a car battery.

I will point out that for someone who continually complains about being victimised you seem to have no problem provoking that response.

[HAL 9000 96]

It seems Mr. Barnett and the rest go way out of their way to harass people.

So is he protecting his property or being a {low class} BP officer in his own mind? Or just a crazy dude?

I guess we don't know, eh.

Rancher Ordered to Pay $98,000 to Hispanic Family He Confronted with an Assault Rifle

DOUGLAS, AZ (By Randal C. Archibold, NYTimes) November 24, 2006 — For years, Roger Barnett has holstered a pistol to his hip, tucked an assault rifle in his truck and set out over the scrub brush on his thousands of acres of ranchland near the Mexican border in southeastern Arizona to hunt.

Hunt illegal immigrants, that is, often chronicled in the news.

"They're flooding across, invading the place," Mr. Barnett told the ABC program "Nightline" this spring. "They're going to bring their families, their wives, and they're going to bring their kids. We don't need them."

But now, after boasting of having captured 12,000 illegal crossers on land he owns or leases from the state and emerging as one of the earliest and most prominent of the self-appointed border watchers, Mr. Barnett finds himself the prey.

Immigrant rights groups have filed lawsuits, accusing him of harassing and unlawfully imprisoning people he has confronted on his ranch near Douglas. One suit pending in federal court accuses him, his wife and his brother of pointing guns at 16 illegal immigrants they intercepted, threatening them with dogs and kicking one woman in the group.

Another suit, accusing Mr. Barnett of threatening two Mexican-American hunters and three young children with an assault rifle and insulting them with racial epithets, ended Wednesday night in Bisbee with a jury awarding the hunters $98,750 in damages.

The court actions are the latest example of attempts by immigrant rights groups to curb armed border-monitoring groups by going after their money, if not their guns. They have won civil judgments in Texas, and this year two illegal Salvadoran immigrants who had been held against their will took possession of a 70-acre ranch in southern Arizona after winning a case last year.

The Salvadorans had accused the property owner, Casey Nethercott, a former leader of the Ranch Rescue group, of menacing them with a gun in 2003. Mr. Nethercott was convicted of illegal gun possession; the Salvadorans plan to sell the property, their lawyer has said.

But Mr. Barnett, known for dressing in military garb and caps with insignia resembling the United States Border Patrol's, represents a special prize to the immigrant rights groups. He is ubiquitous on Web sites, mailings and brochures put out by groups monitoring the Mexican border and, with family members, was an inspiration for efforts like the Minutemen civilian border patrols.

"The Barnetts, probably more than any people in this country, are responsible for the vigilante movement as it now exists," said Mark Potok, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the groups. "They were the recipients of so much press coverage and they kept boasting, and it was out of those boasts that the modern vigilante movement sprang up."

Jesus Romo Vejar, the lawyer for the hunting party, said their court victory Wednesday would serve notice that mistreating immigrants would not pass unpunished. Although the hunters were not in the United States illegally, they contended that Mr. Barnett's treatment of them reflected his attitude and practices toward Latinos crossing his land, no matter what their legal status.

"We have really, truly breached their defense," Mr. Vejar said, "and this opens up the Barnetts to other attorneys to come in and sue him whenever he does some wrong with people."

Mr. Vejar said he would ask the state attorney general and the county attorney, who had cited a lack of evidence in declining to prosecute Mr. Barnett, to take another look at the case. He also said he would ask the state to revoke Mr. Barnett's leases on its land.

Mr. Barnett had denied threatening anyone. He left the courtroom after the verdict without commenting, and his lawyer, John Kelliher, would not comment either.

In a brief interview during a court break last week, Mr. Barnett denied harming anyone and said that the legal action would not deter his efforts. He said that the number of illegal immigrants crossing his land had declined recently but that he thought it was only a temporary trend.

"For your children, for our future, that's why we need to stop them," Mr. Barnett said. "If we don't step in for your children, I don't know who is expected to step in."

Mr. Barnett prevailed in a suit in the summer when a jury ruled against a fellow rancher who had sued, accusing him of trespassing on his property as he pursued immigrants. Another suit last year was dropped when the plaintiff, who had returned to Mexico, decided not to return to press the case.

Still, the threat of liability has discouraged ranchers from allowing the more militant civilian patrol groups on their land, and accusations of abuse seem to be on the wane, said Jennifer Allen of the Border Action Network, an immigrant rights group.

But David H. Urias, a lawyer with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund who is representing the 16 immigrants suing Mr. Barnett, said fewer complaints did not necessarily mean less activity. Immigrants from Mexico are returned to their country often within hours and often under the impression that their deportation — and chance to try to return again — will go quicker without their complaints.

"It took us months to find these 16 people," Mr. Urias said.

People who tend ranches on the border said that even if they did not agree with Mr. Barnett's tactics they sympathized with his rationale, and that putting him out of business would not resolve the problems they believe the crossers cause.

"The illegals think they have carte blanche on his ranch," said Al Garza, the executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Arizona, a civilian patrol group that, Mr. Garza says, does not detain illegal immigrants but calls in their movements to the Border Patrol. "The man has had it."

Mr. Barnett, a retired Cochise County sheriff's deputy and the owner of a towing business, acquired his ranch in the mid-1990s, buying or leasing from the state more than 22,000 acres.

Almost from the start he took up a campaign against the people crossing the border from Mexico, sometimes detaining large groups and radioing for the Border Patrol to pick them up.

Chuy Rodriguez, a spokesman for the agency's Tucson office, said the Border Patrol maintained no formal relationship with Mr. Barnett or other civilian groups. Agency commanders, concerned about potential altercations, have warned the groups not to take the law into their hands.

"If they see something, we ask them to call us, like we would ask of any citizen," Mr. Rodriguez said.

Mr. Barnett's lawyers have suggested he has acted out of a right to protect his property.

"A lease holder doesn't have the right to protect his cattle?" Mr. Kelliher asked one of the men in the hunting party, Arturo Morales, at the trial.

"I guess so, maybe," Mr. Morales replied.

Mr. Barnett has had several encounters with local law enforcement officials over detaining illegal immigrants, some of whom complained that he pointed guns at them. The local authorities have declined to prosecute him, citing a lack of evidence or ambiguity about whether he had violated any laws.

A few years ago, however, the Border Action Network and its allied groups began collecting testimony from illegal immigrants and others who had had confrontations with Mr. Barnett.

They included the hunters, who sued Mr. Barnett for unlawful detention, emotional distress and other claims, and sought at least $200,000. Ronald Morales; his father, Arturo; Ronald Morales's two daughters, ages 9 and 11; and an 11-year-old friend said Mr. Barnett, his brother Donald and his wife, Barbara, confronted them Oct. 30, 2004.

Ronald Morales testified that Mr. Barnett used expletives and ethnically derogatory remarks as he sought to kick them off state-owned property he leases. Then, Mr. Morales said, Mr. Barnett pulled an AR-15 assault rifle from his truck and pointed it at them as they drove off, traumatizing the girls.

Mr. Kelliher conceded that there was a heated confrontation. But he denied that Mr. Barnett used slurs and said Ronald Morales was as much an instigator. He said Morales family members had previously trespassed on Mr. Barnett's land and knew that Mr. Barnett required written permission to hunt there.

Even as the trial proceeded, the Border Patrol reported a 45 percent drop in arrests in the Douglas area in the last year. The agency credits scores of new agents, the National Guard deployment there this summer and improved technology in detecting crossers.

But Ms. Allen of the Border Action Network and other immigrant rights supporters suspect that people are simply crossing elsewhere.

http://hispanic7.com/rancher_ordered_to_pa...sault_rifle.htm

Interesting... so this guy has a history of being an A$$HOLE. And A$$HOLES tend to have major problems with differentiating between defending one's own and violating those they capture while doing so.

Like I said a while back... one thing is to uphold immigration law as a citizen, even at gunpoint. And another is to be like that.

Perhaps that's why the judge in the current case found probably cause? Interesting indeed.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

All you do is understand. It s the epitome of PD.

How about actually giving your opinion for a change with regards to solving the problem. Any idiot can identify it.

Perhaps because unlike you - I don't think these are things that can be resolved with a sawed off shotgun and crocodile clips on the nipples connected to a car battery.

I will point out that for someone who continually complains about being victimised you seem to have no problem provoking that response.

Sure they can. As the bodies pile up rotting along the border, people will think twice before attempting to cross. It worked well along the border between East and West Germany. The Russians shot anyone tryiing to cross and left the bodies as a deterant.

[HAL 9000 96]

It was only a matter of time before we simplified the issue to the point of trying to wash our hands of the matter altogether.

This world is not a closed borders-closed economical system.

Since we want to be reductionists to the point of embarrassment, I merely suggest we do a little more thinking as to how and why it would be in our best interests both legally with this migratory mess and financially to help our neighbors overcome many of the disasters that ironically exist to satisfy our own selfish self-interests.

Using individual examples to exemplify the whole characteristic is only valid when the individual examples are parallel. That is called common sense.

Do you have any idea about what you are talking about?

Yes.

[Heracles 417]

What can complain all day about what people *should* do in idealised situations, but that doesn't take away from the reality of situation that we have.

As far as resolving it - we can certainly bump up border security, but the real solution surely lies in removing the demand for illegal labour and making the US a less attractive prospect for migrants. That can be done to some extent through beefing up labour laws and having uniform procedures for background checks and ID applications.

That said - if it is in our interests to resolve this problem in a meaningful way, then regardless whether we consider it our responsibility or not - we need to work with Mexico and other CA/SA countries to address some of these problems. To some extent this can be achieved through things like NAFTA, which despite of criticisms against it, has had the effect of lowering the poverty rate in Mexico from the very high levels seen in the mid 1990s.

If someone is going to participate in a discussion one would expect them to provide ideas. If giving an idea is a complaint then would you consider someone who simply attacks others who actually form an opinion and provide solution of their own. This is not a press conference. We are not politicians while you are the reporter whose sole purpose is to punch holes in their opinions and every word.

Like in the case of the United Kingdom, European Union, Australia etc, their first task is to secure their borders and ensure illegal immigrants cannot freely let alone easily function in their societies. Anyone caught hiring illegal immigrants faces hefty fines and possible jail sentences. They are punishing the demand more than the supply. Once the immigration process is a well oiled machine and most loopholes are closed, only then can they look at why these people are coming in the first place and take it from there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I did provide ideas.

Perhaps you need to re-read that post again...?

[Heracles 417]

I did provide ideas.

Perhaps you need to re-read that post again...?

I saw your ideas. I was talking about the ongoing issue with you questioning others ideas but never actually giving any of your own. As I said, this is not a press conference.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All you do is understand. It s the epitome of PD.

How about actually giving your opinion for a change with regards to solving the problem. Any idiot can identify it.

Perhaps because unlike you - I don't think these are things that can be resolved with a sawed off shotgun and crocodile clips on the nipples connected to a car battery.

I will point out that for someone who continually complains about being victimised you seem to have no problem provoking that response.

Sure they can. As the bodies pile up rotting along the border, people will think twice before attempting to cross. It worked well along the border between East and West Germany. The Russians shot anyone tryiing to cross and left the bodies as a deterant.

I guess we could put a few heads up on spikes too - you can never have too many of those.

"Welcome to the United States. You #######".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I did provide ideas.

Perhaps you need to re-read that post again...?

I saw your ideas. I was talking about the ongoing issue with you questioning others ideas but never actually giving any of your own. As I said, this is not a press conference.

If you saw my ideas, then there isn't an "ongoing issue" is there?

If you want to challenge the assertions I have made on the topic - you're perfectly free to do so. I certainly don't have a problem challenging arguments I don't agree with.